Climate Prognoses “Not Worth The Paper They’re Pri

[marchesarosa]

Climate Prognoses “Not Worth The Paper They’re Printed On”

By P Gosselin on 20. November 2010

Whoa! Germany’s got a new enfant-terrible. Someone has just bolted though the Climate Berlin Wall, big time. Climatologists are dissenting, and it’s even being reported. The normally quite alarmist Austrian online Der Standard published a shocking article yesterday headlined: Experts: “Prognoses not worth the paper they are printed on”

The article reports on and quotes highly critical comments made by German climatologists, and fired at climate science. Der Standard must have left the microphone on or something, or a substitute editor must have let something get by. The article starts with:

"Vienna – Climate protectors and experts in Cancun will be forced to increasingly defend their earth-warming models against mounting criticism. ‘We just know way too little about the various factors that influence climate and cannot possibly make any reliable prognoses”, says the managing director of Donnerwetter.de and climatologist Karsten Brandt.”

Donnerwetter.de is a private and successful weather forecasting service in Germany. Der Standard reports Dr. Brandt made these comments at a press conference with other climatologists, who say modellers just do not take lots of factors like solar activity and ocean currents into account, and overestimate CO2′s impact. In summary, Dr Brandt is calling the models hopelessly simplistic and useless. Der Standard writes:

"For example, measurement stations in the Antarctic, or also in the Atlantic, have recorded falling temperatures over the last 10 years. Those with the greatest interest are the politicians, and their scientists who are funded by billions. If they ever admitted there is no climate change, they would make themselves redundant."

Us sceptics know this already, of course. But it sure is nice to hear it from a leading daily like Der Standard, and climatologists who really know something about forecasting. With such blistering comments, Dr. Brandt is setting himself up to be Germany’s Joe Bastardi (or John Coleman), who has been very critical of the science underpinning the AGW theory. Brandt then gets even more direct (this is just too good!):

"It is simply nonsense. These prognoses are not worth the paper they’re printed on. The Gulf Stream has an impact on European weather that is 100 times larger than CO2.”

Der Standard adds to this comment:

"That CO2 models have been so accepted by politics, is reckless in Brandt’s view. One explanation for that could be that taxation of CO2 would provide a new source of revenue – in the name environmental protection. But to plan and prepare for warming exclusively, that’s senseless.”

There appears to be lots of sand pouring into the global warming science machinery. For example, the models will have to struggle to account for changes in the Gulf Stream. And Der Standard writes:

"The latest NASA measurements show significantly colder sea surface temperatures than seen in the past years.”

Climate science D-Day is indeed coming.




Courtesy of Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone
notrickszone.com/2010/11/20/climate-models-not-worth-the-paper-theyre-printed-on/

[helen]

Hi, I've been away but I'm back now and pleased to see Mary's cutting and bolting passages from so called sceptical websites without any critique. It's not fact as, and I'm sorry to make an ad hom call on someone but Mary is not especially interested in science, only in the hailing her odd world view that can't help but evoke memories, in me at least, of the anti-science libertarian right wing calls of folk from the Tea Party in the US. Sorry, that was just yesterday!!!!
Mary, if you are not prepared to run with the accepted chemistry and physics of CO2 in the atmosphere (a position held by fewer and fewer folk)your thoughts on science are irrelevant, no matter how many times you gum whole articles from Watts Up With Watt on these pages.
Have a look at this climatecrocks.com/2010/11/19/the-last-rational-republican/ Bet you look at it and don't hear what this republican is saying. Come back with an opinion and an explanation of the science. Mary, ever hear of The Alamo!!!!!!!!!!

[Progenitor A]

Nov 22, 2010 18:07:57 GMT 1 helen said:

Hi, I've been away but I'm back now and pleased to see Mary's cutting and bolting passages from so called sceptical websites without any critique. It's not fact as, and I'm sorry to make an ad hom call on someone but Mary is not especially interested in science, only in the hailing her odd world view that can't help but evoke memories, in me at least, of the anti-science libertarian right wing calls of folk from the Tea Party in the US. Sorry, that was just yesterday!!!!
Mary, if you are not prepared to run with the accepted chemistry and physics of CO2 in the atmosphere (a position held by fewer and fewer folk)your thoughts on science are irrelevant, no matter how many times you gum whole articles from Watts Up With Watt on these pages.
Have a look at this climatecrocks.com/2010/11/19/the-last-rational-republican/ Bet you look at it and don't hear what this republican is saying. Come back with an opinion and an explanation of the science. Mary, ever hear of The Alamo!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Helen!
The last I heard from you, you were slightly perhaps, inebriated, shouting a mixture of love and abuse at anyone within earshot

Nice to see you back, we will have to have a drink together (you can have two to my one if you wish - metaphorically speaking, of course)

[helen]

Mary, who are these people you've dug up to make sceptical comments about climate science? I can find no relevant links to them. Who are they!!!!! More of the non-science types like Lord Monkton you so love to laud? Come on, your circle of friends is shrinking and becoming exponentially more shrill. Watt's Up With That is becoming a seat of satire. Superb!

[rsmith7]

Welcome back helen darling - were the walls in your accommodation nice and squidgy?
The game's up.
CAGW is so last year.

[helen]

Hey RSmith, glad to see your political compadres are still voting in favour of the EC budget. Don't call anything I say unless you can back it up with facts. You have never done this in the past even on your specialist subject of saying how big the sea is so what's new man?
Have you ever been off your little island kingdom and visited the real world of cities and stuff like that.....and noticed that folk in cities don't do things like you do in Shetland with your lobsters and population of ....what is it up there? Eighteen in the capitol?
Hope you've got a coat, cold weather on the way......oh but you don't believe the Met Office so you'll be out on the beach being an arse!
Helen x

[abacus9900]

......oh but you don't believe the Met Office so you'll be out on the beach being an arse!
Helen x

Certainly a cold arse.

[principled]

Talking of cold posteriors Abacus, my daughter - who now lives in central Canada- tells me that there is definite GW going on. Tonight is due to be minus 26C rather than minus 27!
P
PS: Welcome back Helen. We need a few more of the old BBC posters. Where are they? Has Dermod resolved Black body radiation and has L-L found a battery that charges itself? These are crucial to the development of science, so how do we seek them on the Internet!

[rsmith7]

Nov 22, 2010 19:04:52 GMT 1 helen said:

Hey RSmith, glad to see your political compadres are still voting in favour of the EC budget. Don't call anything I say unless you can back it up with facts. You have never done this in the past even on your specialist subject of saying how big the sea is so what's new man?
Have you ever been off your little island kingdom and visited the real world of cities and stuff like that.....and noticed that folk in cities don't do things like you do in Shetland with your lobsters and population of ....what is it up there? Eighteen in the capitol?
Hope you've got a coat, cold weather on the way......oh but you don't believe the Met Office so you'll be out on the beach being an arse!
Helen x

Helen darling,

I have been off my little islandS of Orkney. Just last week in fact - to see Motorhead in Aberdeen.
Drove from Portsmouth to John o Groats the week before and was in Spain a few weeks previously,....Africa last year, France before that...Norway, Holland, India, USSR, Usbekistan, Thailand, Australia. Worked in London for three years and studied in Edinburgh.
I don't have any "political compadres".
So co2 only lasts 5 - 10 years in the atmosphere but the warmist models have it at 100 - 150 years.
Aren't you a little embarrassed that all your arguments have evapourated?
We're a week previous to a major climate summit and the silence in the media is deafening.
The window lickers favourite, the Guardian, don't even mention it.
When you've lost the media, the game is over.
About time.

[helen]

Political campadres? of course you do RSmith....UKIP man! Heard your Euro (ha) leader on the radio the other morning. Whatever, sorry about getting your island wrong but it's your posted attitude to public transport and whatnot that made me wonder have you never been any where bigger and more cosmopolitan than small islands.
CO2 chemistry and physics in the atmosphere is clearly beyond your ken, the arguments are falling around you small minded non-science libertarians like the turfs dug from the holes with which you Orkadians heat your homes.....ha ha ha ha it's irony RSmith. I know that you're just connected to the 21st century. Can't imagine how the wilder world impacted upon your world view.....I can actually. You demonstrate it with every post.

We've been here before. Post some facts to support you opinions rather than calling the Guardian from pillar to post.

Love Motorhead though, Ill concede you that but Windowlicker? This must be you www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqjhcdl8Kt8 or is this you, shouting at old ladies.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWDAtMPoBHA ha ha ha
Don't care where you've been RSmith, your world view stinks. UKIP science.....oxymoron or what......deserves to stay up there in the islands closer to Rockall and St Kilder than us here in England and the real world.

[speakertoanimals]

So co2 only lasts 5 - 10 years in the atmosphere but the warmist models have it at 100 - 150 years.

You obviously missed the comments I made on this point a few days back. Lasts x years in the atmosphere impies that there is only ONE relevant timescale, and there is more than one. Hence its the usual nonsense statement from the know-nothings................

Doesn't stop them quoting it at every opportunity though............

[speakertoanimals]

I see M is doing her usual thing of cutting and pasting stuff from denialist websites without any attribution (WHY don't you learn how to use the quote facility, then we could at least see that it was a quote, not your own words!).

The article I could find was here:
derstandard.at/1289608329519/Klimagipfel-von-Cancun-Experten-Prognosen-nicht-das-Papier-wert-auf-dem-sie-gedruckt-sind

The person quoted seems to be:

managing director of service provider Donnerwetter.de, climatologist Karsten Brandt.

and some others (whether climatologist or meterologist, I don't trust google translation to distinguish..........)

Responses say that:

Meteorologists are not climate experts!

The "findings" of Dr. Brandt in all honor, but with scientific respectability has nothing to do. It is the opinion of the manager of a weather page that this is free to good publicity.

ANd that seems to be it! Not exactly a panel of climatologists from a range of leading austrian or german universities, just ONE web weatherman as far as I can see...................

I really don't see there is anything to get that excited about, unless you are a denier desperately looking for ANYTHING that supposedly supports your position that the consensus on AGW is a chimaera.

[helen]

You, STA are a veteran of the BBC Science boards. How many times have the atmospheric residence times of CO2, of CO and of CH4 been called and the speciously argued as reasons why they they can have no significant long term effect on the nature of things? The physics and chemistry of these gases are FACTS! Unless of course you know better.

Come on you decriers......let's have an argument!

[speakertoanimals]

I'll admit that I tried to avoid climate science.

But it's the usual pattern, some snipped quoted as fact, usually implying that climate scientists have got something very wrong by an order of magnitude or more, that never gets into the actual complications of the subject.

SO, my list at the moment is:

UHI, and how climatologists have been too stupid to allow for it.

Residence time, and how they've been too stupid to allow for it.

THe point being, it doesn't matter how many times you try and argue that the comment is either incorrect, or just plain misleading, the people that use it just ignore you, and keep posting the same ole rubbish. In some ways, its like the anti-evolutionists, who keep using old chestnuts such as the Darwin misquote about the eye.........

Or more recently on here, misquoting Feynman about nobody understands quantum theory, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that perhaps we do, just a little bit................

[enquirer]

Nov 22, 2010 20:58:32 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

So co2 only lasts 5 - 10 years in the atmosphere but the warmist models have it at 100 - 150 years.
Aren't you a little embarrassed that all your arguments have evapourated?

Once again you are displaying your lack of knowledge and understanding.

See www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm for the explanation of the science

"Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries."

There's even a little worked example for you to follow